alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed March 16, 2015.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00269-CR

REGINALD A. NOBLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. W00-50025-K

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Fillmore, and Brown

Opinion by Justice Fillmore

Reginald Noble was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and was sentenced 

to life in prison. Appellant’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Noble v. State, No. 08-

01-00035-CR, 2002 WL 221886 (Tex. App.––El Paso Feb. 4, 2002, pet. ref’d) (not designated 

for publication).1

 The Court now has before it appellant’s “Motion for Leave to File Notice of 

Appeal,” which we will treat as a pro se notice of appeal. In the document, appellant appears to 

complain about a post-conviction habeas corpus order of the trial court rendered under article 

11.07 of the code of criminal procedure.

On October 21, 2014, the trial court issued an order finding that “there are no 

controverted, previously unresolved facts material to the legality of the Applicant’s confinement 

 1 The appeal, originally filed in this Court and docketed as cause no. 05-00-02050-CR, was transferred to the El Paso Court of Appeals 

under a docket equalization order of the Texas Supreme Court.
–2–

which require an evidentiary hearing” and recommending to the court of criminal appeals that 

appellant’s tenth application for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. To the extent that appellant 

seeks to appeal the ruling on the post-conviction habeas corpus petition, this Court has no 

jurisdiction over such proceedings. See TEX. CODE CRIM. P. ANN. arts. 11.05, 11.07 (West 2005 

& Supp. 2014) (identifying courts that may grant post-conviction writs of habeas corpus and 

procedure for post-conviction habeas corpus applications). To the extent appellant seeks to 

challenge by direct appeal the sentence imposed in 2000, his March 9, 2015 notice of appeal is 

untimely. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1) (notice of appeal due within thirty days after sentence 

suspended or imposed in open court).

We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

150269F.U05

/Robert M. Fillmore/

ROBERT M. FILLMORE

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

REGINALD A. NOBLE, Appellant

No. 05-15-00269-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 4, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. W00-50025-K.

Opinion delivered by Justice Fillmore, 

Justices Bridges and Brown participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 16th day of March, 2015.
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

478 

KA 10-02156 

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ. 

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WILLIAM BROCKINGTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

 

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (JAMES ECKERT OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

MICHAEL C. GREEN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (NANCY GILLIGAN OF

COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Monroe County Court (Frank P. Geraci,

Jr., J.), entered September 21, 2010. The order determined that

defendant is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender

Registration Act. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order determining that he

is a level three risk pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act

(Correction Law § 168 et seq.). Defendant failed to preserve for our

review his contention that he was entitled to a downward departure

from his presumptive risk level (see People v Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110,

lv denied 11 NY3d 708). “In any event, that contention lacks merit

inasmuch as defendant failed to present clear and convincing evidence

of special circumstances justifying a downward departure” (People v

Regan, 46 AD3d 1434, 1435; see Ratcliff, 53 AD3d 1110).

Entered: April 20, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Your session is about to expire.Resume session

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Welcome.Log inorregisterCOPS OFFICE RESOURCE CENTER

HomeCatalogCartOrders

                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                CatalogMatches: 1Offline form Recent Popular Online Print OtherCOPS-W0046Creative Partnerships: Supporting Youth, Building CommunitiesThis COPS Innovations piece highlights community policing approaches to developing partnerships with youth. Three youth-focused programs funded by the COPS Office serve as examples of partnerships that law enforcement, schools, and community organizations can form to address issues of juvenile crime and victimization.By Dylan Presman, Robert Chapman, Linda RosenCategories: Community Partnerships • Youth SafetyLanguage: EnglishPublic linkhttps://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter?item=cops-w0046Click here to see the entire catalog.Cart:Download PDFWeb • Sep 2002Search catalogreset title abstract authors contentContaining text: exact phraseNot containing text: exact phraseLanguage:anyEnglishSpanishHmongVietnameseCategory:anyAlternatives to IncarcerationCommunity PartnershipsData and AnalysisEthics and IntegrityFoundations of Community PolicingHiring, Recruitment, and RetentionHomeland SecurityNew Immigrant CommunitiesNonviolent CrimeOtherPolice OperationsPOP Center ResourceSchool and Campus SafetyTechnologyTribalViolent CrimeYouth SafetyPublished after:Published before:Page1

                    

FOIA | No FEAR Act | Open Government | Privacy | Legal|HelpCopyright (C) U.S. Department of Justice, COPS Office, IT Division, 2012 - 2024. All rights reserved.
Rendered on Mon Mar 4 2024 at 05:23 (UTC-5) in 0.89 secEnterprise Framework 3.21.7.7 • Store Controls 3.3.1.7Survey 500303407 Section 60000560 Rules Hints Inactive
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains information extracted from form 10-K at December 31,
1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,087
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,952
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,396
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     5
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,391
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,391
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 622
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 622 appear at 79 FR 57837, Sept. 26, 2014 and at 81 FR 32253, May 23, 2016.

§ 622.71 Recordkeeping and reporting. ( a ) *Individuals with aquacultured live rock permits.* ( 1 ) A person with a Federal aquacultured live rock permit must report to the RA each deposition of material on a site. Such reports must be postmarked not later than 7 days after deposition and must contain the following information: ( i ) Permit number of site and date of deposit.
( ii ) Geological origin of material deposited.
( iii ) Amount of material deposited.
( iv ) Source of material deposited, that is, where obtained, if removed from another habitat, or from whom purchased.
( 2 ) A person who takes aquacultured live rock must submit a report of harvest to the RA. Specific reporting requirements will be provided with the permit. This reporting requirement is waived for aquacultured live rock that is landed in Florida.
( b ) [Reserved]
# EUR-Lex - 12004V081 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V081

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART II — THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE UNION - TITLE III — EQUALITY - Article II-81 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0046 - 0046 *

Article II-81

Non-discrimination

1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

2. Within the scope of application of the Constitution and without prejudice to any of its specific provisions, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.

--------------------------------------------------
#### THOMAS CREGIN, Administrator, etc., of JAMES CREGIN, Deceased, Respondent, *v.*BROOKLYN CROSSTOWN RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

*Trial before a judge disqualified by reason of Ms intei'est as a stockholder of the: defendant a corporation*— *the successful party, if successful on a new trial, entitled to costs of both.*

After this action had heen tried, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff, and before entry of judgment it was discovered that the judge was disqualified, being-one of the executors of an estate holding stock in the defendant corporation. The action was retried before another judge, and the plaintiff again recovered a verdict.

*Held,*that the plaintiff was entitled to tax costs for two trials.

Appeal from an order denying a motion for a readjustment of costs.

This action was tried before Hon. A. McCue, judge of the City Court of Brooklyn, and a jury, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff.

Thereafter and before entry of judgment it.was discovered and decided that the said judge was disqualified from sitting, because of interest, under 2 R. S., 275, section 2, he being a co-executor of an estate holding stock in the defendant corporation, and another trial was thereupon had before another judge, on which a verdict was again rendered for plaintiff.

The case having been meanwhile transferred to the Supreme Court, by certificate, of two judges of the City Court, of disqualification to sit at General Term, the county clerk of Kings county, under objection, taxed all the costs of said proceeding before Judge McCue, as though there had been a lawful trial. A *350motion in the nature of an appeal was made at Special Term, to disallow these items, which motion was denied, and this appeal is taken from the order entered thereon.

*Britton*eg *Ely,*for the appellant.

*J. Wamn Lawlm,*for the respondent.

Dykman, J.:

The order appealed from should be affirmed.

The first trial was before a court having jurisdiction, and there was a verdict had.

The disqualification of the trial judge was an irregularity which prevented the entry of judgment, but it cannot deprive the suc■cessful party of his costs.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Present — Gilbert, and Dykman, JJ.

Order denying retaxation affirmed, with ten dollars costs and •disbursements.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 39561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16298]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Recommendations from Airman Testing Standards and Training 
Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of report availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of a report from the 
ARC, which presents recommendations to enhance the content, process, 
and methodology for development of aeronautical knowledge testing and 
training materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Van L. Kerns, Manager, Regulatory 
Support Division, FAA Flight Standards Service, AFS 600, FAA Mike 
Monroney Aeronautical Center, P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125; 
telephone (405) 954-4431, email van.l.kerns@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On September 21, 2011, the FAA chartered the ARC to provide a forum 
for the U.S. aviation community to share its experience and expertise 
in the areas of aeronautical knowledge required for safer operation in 
today's National Airspace System (NAS).
    The FAA's charge to the ARC was to help ensure that technical 
information related to airman knowledge tests, computer testing 
supplements, knowledge test guides, and training handbooks incorporates 
the most current and relevant standards, policies, procedures, and 
techniques. The FAA specifically tasked the ARC with providing 
recommendations on the content of these materials, a process for 
stakeholder participation, and appropriate methodologies for developing 
test item bank questions. The FAA also requested the ARC's 
recommendations on prioritizing the enhancement of these materials.

Notice of Availability

    The ARC submitted its report to FAA on April 13, 2012. The report 
is now available for review and download from the FAA Web site at: 
http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/draft_docs/arc.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 12, 2012.
Melvin O. Cintron,
Acting, Director, Flight Standards, AFS-1.
[FR Doc. 2012-16298 Filed 7-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
Gas station test/component pricing

Perkins, Rick to

:

Lynn Dail

Cc

:

"Hagan, Fred D"

Dail,

Sorry for the delay but below is a price list of Stage II versus conventional gasoline station parts. These 

are approximate prices from various sources. Maine stations follow CARB requirements such as annual 

pressure decay and A/L testing for most with blockage required every five years (unless retesting is 

triggered). I believe you have product drop tube prices so they are not included here. Contact either 

Fred Hagan (207-822-6300) or me with any questions. Good luck and looking forward to EPA’s final

decision on ST-30 (1994) versus TP-201.3.

Rick Perkins

Maine DEP, Bureau of Air Quality

312 Canco Road

Portland, Maine 04103

(207) 822-6355 (p)

(207) 822-6303 (f)

rick.perkins@maine.gov

Stage II Testing- Larger Station (more than 6 dispensers):

 Flat rate of about $900 to include (PD, TIE, P/V, BLK, A/L).
Stage II Testing- Smaller Station (6 dispensers or less):

 Flat rate of about $750 to include (PD, TIE, P/V, BLK, A/L).

Individual Cost/Breakdown of Stage II Tests:

 PD= $350

 TIE= $50

 P/V= $75

 BLK= $275

 A/L= $350

Cost of Stage II Equipment (this would not include labor which averages about $70/hour):

 Vac Assist Nozzle= $235

 Balance Nozzle= $200

 Breakaway= $125

 12” Whip Hose= $60

 8’ Hose= $185

 Flow restrictor= $75

 Swivel Fill Adapter= $185

 Swivel Vapor Adapter= $230

 Plastic Fill Cap= $30

 Plastic Vapor Cap= $32

 Low Profile Fill Cap= $65

 Low Profile Vapor Cap= $62

 Standard 4” brass fill adapter= $45

 Standard 4” Aluminum Vapor Adapter= $85

 P/V Vent Cap= $110

 Vac Motor= $430 (plus $179 core charge)

Conventional Dispenser Equipment Costs
 Nozzle= $52

 Hose (10’)= $41

 Breakaway= $28

 Breakaway hose (8”)= $15.00
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-85,529-01
EX P ARTE JOSE ANDRES DE LA ROSA, App licant
ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. CR-1838- 93-D(1) IN THE 206T H DISTRICT COURT

F ROM HIDALG O COUNTY
Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of possession of marihuana and sentenc ed to twelve y ear s’ imprisonment. The Thirteenth Court of Appea ls aff irmed his conviction. De La Rosa v. State , No. 13-94-00356- CR (Tex
. Ap p . — C o rpus Christi Sept. 14, 1995) (not designated f

or publication). Applicant contends that he is entitled to ti me spent out of custody on an appe al bond. The trial court made finding s of fac t and conclusions of law and rec ommen d ed t hat we g rant relief
. Acc ording to the trial court’s finding s and conclusions, Applicant testified at an evidentiar y hearing2

on J une 10, 2016. The repor ter’s rec ord of that hearing was not, howeve r, forwa rded with the habea s
rec ord. This application will be held in abe yance . The reporter’ s rec ord shall be f orwa rded to this Court within 90 day s of t he date of this order. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtained from thi s Court.
Filed: September

14, 2016 Do not publish
EXHIBIT 31.1


              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Jason Smart, certify that:

1. I have  reviewed  this  quarterly  report  on Form 10-Q of  Medical  Makeover
Corporation of America;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial  condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.  The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer  and  I  are  responsible  for
establishing and maintaining  disclosure  controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

     a.  designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused  such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that  material  information  relating to the  registrant,  including  its
consolidated subsidiaries,  is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the effectiveness
of the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered
by this quarterly report based on such evaluation; and
     c. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over  financial  reporting  that occurred  during the  registrant's  most recent
fiscal  quarter  that  has  materially  affected,  or is  reasonably  likely  to
materially affect, the registrant's  internal control over financial  reporting;
and

5. I have  disclosed,  based on our most recent  evaluation of internal  control
over financial reporting,  to the registrant's  auditors and the audit committee
of the  registrant's  board of directors (or persons  performing  the equivalent
functions):

     a. all significant  deficiencies  and material  weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting,  which are reasonably
likely  to  adversely  affect  the  registrant's  ability  to  record,  process,
summarize and report financial information; and
     b. any fraud,  whether or not material,  that involves  management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's  internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: May 15, 2009              /s/ Jason Smart
                                ---------------------
                                Jason Smart
                                Chief Executive Officer
# EUR-Lex - 12004V215 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V215

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER III — POLICIES IN OTHER AREAS - Section 2 — Social policy - Article III-215 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0096 - 0096 *

Article III-215

Member States shall endeavour to maintain the existing equivalence between paid holiday schemes.

--------------------------------------------------
§ 32.5 What are the requirements for sportfishing on areas of the National Wildlife Refuge System? The following provisions shall apply to each person while engaged in public sport fishing on a wildlife refuge area: ( a ) Each person shall secure and possess the required State license.
( b ) Each person shall comply with the applicable provisions of Federal law and regulation including this subchapter.
( c ) Each person shall comply with the applicable provisions of the laws and regulations of the State wherein any area is located unless the same are further restricted by Federal law or regulation.
( d ) Each person shall comply with the terms and conditions authorizing access and use of the wildlife refuge area.
( e ) Each person must comply with the provisions of any refuge-specific regulation governing fishing on the wildlife refuge area. Regulations, special conditions, and maps of the fishing areas for a particular wildlife refuge are available at that area's headquarters. In addition, refuge-specific sport fishing regulations appear in §§ 32.20 through 32.72.
[58 FR 5064, Jan. 19, 1993, as amended at 67 FR 58943, Sept. 18, 2002]